However, try harder - find some evidence that a god did create life and then people might take you idea seriously but until then, remember, no evidence means it cannot be considered.

If you have truly studied and researched Intelligent Design Theory and have still come to the conclusion that there is no possibility for a Creator then you have reached a personal decision that everyone is entitled to. If the ToE is so convincing, then I fail to see why people get all torqued up when an alternate view is presented. In other words, why should ToE advocates have anything to be worried or concerned about?

I'll certainly grant that intelligent design is a possibility. I mean, what we're doing with genetic engineering pretty much fits that category. But the key difference is that we have evidence of an intelligent species - us - which is causing changes in living creatures. Where's all the evidence that supports that in regards to how life on Earth developed? Some evidence far outweighs no evidence, which is what advocates of "intelligent design" (aka creationism, whether you're willing to admit it or not) have so far.

There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator.

Could you give a few examples of something that you feel you can 'fully dismiss' the possibility of?

However, try harder - find some evidence that a god did create life and then people might take you idea seriously but until then, remember, no evidence means it cannot be considered.

If you have truly studied and researched Intelligent Design Theory and have still come to the conclusion that there is no possibility for a Creator then you have reached a personal decision that everyone is entitled to. If the ToE is so convincing, then I fail to see why people get all torqued up when an alternate view is presented. In other words, why should ToE advocates have anything to be worried or concerned about?

its the fact that ID is being posited as science. ID is religion, ToE etc is in a different realm at the moment.If science does eventually point to god then so be it but at the moment it doesn't. So why try to force a square peg into what is at present a round hole?

However, try harder - find some evidence that a god did create life and then people might take you idea seriously but until then, remember, no evidence means it cannot be considered.

If you have truly studied and researched Intelligent Design Theory and have still come to the conclusion that there is no possibility for a Creator then you have reached a personal decision that everyone is entitled to. If the ToE is so convincing, then I fail to see why people get all torqued up when an alternate view is presented. In other words, why should ToE advocates have anything to be worried or concerned about?

its the fact that ID is being posited as science. ID is religion, ToE etc is in a different realm at the moment.If science does eventually point to god then so be it but at the moment it doesn't. So why try to force a square peg into what is at present a round hole?

Why try and stifle people's curiosity to examine alternate theories and possibilities? Do you know how many inventions would have never been realized if people possessed your mindset.

There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator.

Could you give a few examples of something that you feel you can 'fully dismiss' the possibility of?

Nope.

Is it fair to say, then, that the statement:"There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator."

provides no additional data in helping to determine the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed?"

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Is it fair to say, then, that the statement:"There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator."

provides no additional data in helping to determine the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed?"

How do YOU define "truth?"

I don't. Personal failing of mine. But I don't see why you need my definition of 'truth' to answer the above question.

If my statement above is not fair, and the statement "There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator" does provide additional data in determining the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed," then your explanation of how that works may help me find a suitable definition for 'truth'.

If my statement above is fair, then perhaps an explanation of the other data points you use in evaluating the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed" as true would help me find a suitable definition for 'truth'.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Is it fair to say, then, that the statement:"There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator."

provides no additional data in helping to determine the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed?"

How do YOU define "truth?"

I don't. Personal failing of mine. But I don't see why you need my definition of 'truth' to answer the above question.

If my statement above is not fair, and the statement "There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator" does provide additional data in determining the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed," then your explanation of how that works may help me find a suitable definition for 'truth'.

If my statement above is fair, then perhaps an explanation of the other data points you use in evaluating the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed" as true would help me find a suitable definition for 'truth'.

If you do not define "truth" then your question relating to the "truth-value" of something is nonsensical. In other words, how can anything have "truth-value" to you? The answer to your question relies on how the person being asked defines "truth" and no matter how they answer it, it will not and cannot make any sense to you since you have no definition of "truth."

I don't. Personal failing of mine. But I don't see why you need my definition of 'truth' to answer the above question.

If my statement above is not fair, and the statement "There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator" does provide additional data in determining the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed," then your explanation of how that works may help me find a suitable definition for 'truth'.

If my statement above is fair, then perhaps an explanation of the other data points you use in evaluating the truth-value of the statement "A creator(s) exists or existed" as true would help me find a suitable definition for 'truth'.

If you do not define "truth" then your question relating to the "truth-value" of something is nonsensical. In other words, how can anything have "truth-value" to you? The answer to your question relies on how the person being asked defines "truth" and no matter how they answer it, it will not and cannot make any sense to you since you have no definition of "truth."

How about if I just concede that 'truth' means whatever it meant in the context of your declaration that "There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator."

Presumably, that can be rewritten as:There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator as true.

Alternatively, you can provide the definition of 'truth' you were using when you made the statement and we can argue about that.

If you do neither, then my question is moot and can be dismissed.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Coming as I do from a science-friendly family, and working in a field heavily dependent on science, this whole debate really hits close to home.

The reason that all competent school science classes teach science rather than religion is that science works. It works for everyone regardless of what they believe, whereas any given religious viewpoint produces inconsistent results even for fervent believers.

This goes far beyond a mere difference of opinion. At the risk of sounding alarmist, I think that choosing "creation science" over real science puts actual lives at stake. It compromises the intellectual integrity of the students by causing them to accept or reject information not on its own merits, but on whether or not it supports their religious beliefs.

If a medical student in a Biology class rejects evolution because it contradicts the book of Genesis, will this future doctor be competent to deal with a gay patient suffering from HIV, or instead stall antiretroviral treatment and let the patient die because Leviticus says he should die?

Will a physician force her beliefs upon non-believing patients, garnering censure from medical regulatory bodies when the patient complains, and possibly torpedo her own career?

Will a psychiatrist eschew antidepressants or antipsychotics in favour of spiritual warfare, attempting a twisted form of talk therapy wherein the conversation is between the doctor and Satan and God? (We know how well that ended up for poor Job...)

I don't see much critical thinking going on in creationism curricula, either -- Unless one redefines the term to mean "critical of everything un-Biblical."

You'll excuse me if I find that exceedingly doubtful, especially given that you're repeating the same line about lies being taught in the science classroom that a lot of right-wing theists claim in this country. Oh, I don't doubt that you've attempted that sort of self-reflection. I just doubt that you've come anywhere near as close to achieving it as you clearly think you have. What I think you've actually done is ask God, in the silence of your own mind, to reassure you that your beliefs are accurate - which is no different than self-reassurance, under the circumstances.

So instead of just telling me that you've done it extensively, for many, many, many hours, how about you give some details on just what it is that you've done?[1]

Yes, I have. I have three children so I have had numerous high school and college biology texts come into my home that I have examined. Suffice it to say, there were numerous inaccuracies and, in some cases, blatant lies regarding the theory of evolution.

How closely have you examined them? What 'inaccuracies' and 'lies' are you referring to? In case you haven't figured it out, I don't trust your judgment when it comes to evolution, not the least reason of which because I doubt you've ever taken the time to actually learn what evolution is really about (as opposed to what places like the Discovery Institute say it's about). People who are not knowledgeable about a subject are prone to assuming they know it better than they actually do, and to paraphrase something I read recently, once you start making assumptions based on incomplete information, those initial assumptions tend to stay there and shape any further information you take in, directing you further and further away from accurate conclusions.

So I want to know specifics, instead of just generalities. Don't just tell me that you've spent many hours trying to set aside your Biblical beliefs, don't just tell me that you've found numerous inaccuracies and blatant lies regarding evolution. Give me details on things like this.

There is simply no reason to fully dismiss the possibility of a Creator.

And when did I say that you, or anyone, should fully dismiss the possibility of a creator? What I said is that some evidence, which evolution has, far outweighs no evidence, which is what intelligent design/creationism has so far. That doesn't mean "there's no creator-god", that means there's no evidence, and without evidence, your chances of convincing someone who doesn't already believe in your god are practically nil.

Don't you get it? If there were real, solid evidence supporting the idea of intelligent design in Earth's past, then evolutionary theory would already incorporate it, the way it incorporates artificial selection and genetic engineering. The problem is, there is no such evidence. That's why creationists have to resort to referring to creationism with euphemisms like intelligent design, and are now referring to "teaching the controversy" (which you alluded to with "alternate theories"). What creationists mean by both is an attempt to get their foot in the door - to say, essentially, that their beliefs haven't been disproved and should be taught too. However, while your beliefs haven't been disproved, that is a very long way from saying that they have any supporting evidence whatsoever, and science requires evidence (and lots of it) before something is accepted as being true.

If you have truly studied and researched Intelligent Design Theory and have still come to the conclusion that there is no possibility for a Creator then you have reached a personal decision that everyone is entitled to. If the ToE is so convincing, then I fail to see why people get all torqued up when an alternate view is presented. In other words, why should ToE advocates have anything to be worried or concerned about?

Because when you start talking about "alternate views", you prove that you don't really understand how science works to begin with. Science isn't something where a person can read up on it and decide what they want to believe in, just as you can't decide whether to believe in gravity or not. It's a way to figure out how reality works, and reality doesn't care what an individual wants to believe, or what several billion people want to believe for that matter.

So, in one respect, it doesn't matter whether people like you want to believe in evolution or not. But in other respects, it matters very much. Take the example of deciding not to believe in gravity that I just listed. Do you really think I want to see people walking off of cliffs or tall buildings because they'd convinced themselves that they could ignore gravity? Or that I'd want to see people drinking poison because they'd been talked into believing that God would protect them from its effects? Or that I'd want to see people dying from easily-preventable diseases because of hype about immunizations causing autism, despite there being no credible link between the two?

So there's your answer. That's why I get all torqued up, as you put it. The consequences of fooling people into thinking they can decide for themselves whether evolution is real may be less dire than those other things I mentioned, but they're basically the same thing - the idea that what a person believes overrides reality, even though this is most certainly not true. Belief doesn't protect you from dying due to a fall, or from dying if you drink poison, or getting sick/dying from a disease, so it's foolishness to think that it can determine how reality works.

See what I did there? Even though I'm very doubtful of you, I'm acknowledging that I might be wrong and letting you take the opportunity to elaborate, rather than just blowing you off because of what I think happened.

Coming as I do from a science-friendly family, and working in a field heavily dependent on science, this whole debate really hits close to home.

The reason that all competent school science classes teach science rather than religion is that science works. It works for everyone regardless of what they believe, whereas any given religious viewpoint produces inconsistent results even for fervent believers.

This goes far beyond a mere difference of opinion. At the risk of sounding alarmist, I think that choosing "creation science" over real science puts actual lives at stake. It compromises the intellectual integrity of the students by causing them to accept or reject information not on its own merits, but on whether or not it supports their religious beliefs.

If a medical student in a Biology class rejects evolution because it contradicts the book of Genesis, will this future doctor be competent to deal with a gay patient suffering from HIV, or instead stall antiretroviral treatment and let the patient die because Leviticus says he should die?

Will a physician force her beliefs upon non-believing patients, garnering censure from medical regulatory bodies when the patient complains, and possibly torpedo her own career?

Will a psychiatrist eschew antidepressants or antipsychotics in favour of spiritual warfare, attempting a twisted form of talk therapy wherein the conversation is between the doctor and Satan and God? (We know how well that ended up for poor Job...)

I don't see much critical thinking going on in creationism curricula, either -- Unless one redefines the term to mean "critical of everything un-Biblical."

Kindly explain how Intelligent Design Theory in the classroom would interfere with a study of the ToE.

And, yes, IMO, the concerns you spelled out meets the criteria for being an "alarmist."

You know. We do not know what happened in the milliseconds or the millennia or the billions of years before the Big Bang. We don't even know that "time" existed.

So I think that it is perfectly appropriate to consider all possibilities for that which is unknown, including the possibility of a "creator." A "creator" would, of course, raise even more questions. Who created the creator? How did the creator come to be? Is this "creator" even sentient? Mechanical? Organic? Was the Big Bang just another phase in a long cycle of creation and expansion and disintegration that is so large and huge that we cannot begin to comprehend it? Is our universe, as many scientists speculate, one of many universes? [1]

There are many unanswered questions, and if you would like to throw your god into the pot in terms of possible explanations, worthy of exploration, that is fine.

But let's not pretend that all of the stuff that happened AFTER the big bang is up for dispute. That is just silly. And it is certainly not something that belongs in our children's classrooms.

If the ToE is so convincing, then I fail to see why people get all torqued up when an alternate view is presented.

Because kids are stupid and impressionable. And telling them ID is a reasonable alternative to evolution is like telling them it is reasonable to believe storks deliver babies.

Plus, you and others of your ilk are trying to inject something that has nothing to do with science into a science class. It is an apples and oranges. Like trying to get Harry Potter into a history class. "It is an alternative explanation of WW2 that it was really an extension of the war in the wizarding world between Albus Dumbledore and Gellert Grindelwald. Oh, yeah, and ID is a better explanation than evolution."

In short, we get torqued up because ID only serves to confuse people and muddy the waters. IF the goal is education, introducing ID is counterproductive. Unless you want to use it as an exercise on how to not do things...

But let's not pretend that all of the stuff that happened AFTER the big bang is up for dispute. That is just silly.

Well, the stuff that happened AFTER the big bang can be up for dispute.

Caveat: The basis for the disputes should be new data, not old agendas.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Yes, I have. I have three children so I have had numerous high school and college biology texts come into my home that I have examined. Suffice it to say, there were numerous inaccuracies and, in some cases, blatant lies regarding the theory of evolution.

How closely have you examined them? What 'inaccuracies' and 'lies' are you referring to? In case you haven't figured it out, I don't trust your judgment when it comes to evolution, not the least reason of which because I doubt you've ever taken the time to actually learn what evolution is really about (as opposed to what places like the Discovery Institute say it's about).

So I want to know specifics, instead of just generalities. Don't just tell me that you've spent many hours trying to set aside your Biblical beliefs, don't just tell me that you've found numerous inaccuracies and blatant lies regarding evolution. Give me details on things like this.

Sure. I'll give you an example from one of my kids books that I had discussed in an earlier thread:

"Biology- Understanding Life" – Alters & Alters - copyright 2006.

As always, I no more than flipped it open to page 251 where a new chapter starts and am immediately drawn to strange claim made in the first paragraph. The chapter is titled “Beyond Darwinism: A Genetic Basis of Evolution.” The very first sentence in the chapter says “Scientists know that snakes evolved from ancient lizards.”

They know this ?? The next two paragraphs go on to explain the hypotheses that have been formed to explain how the ancient lizard lost its legs. Now, I have heard that there is supposedly fossil evidence to suggest that snakes evolved from lizards but to see a college level text declaring that scientists KNOW this is, to me, a good example of the dishonest claims that are often made.

And then you have this:"Houssaye, however, does not think the case is yet closed as to whether or not snakes evolved from a marine or land-based lizard."The question of snake origin should not be resolved in the next 10 years," Houssaye said.She is, however, hopeful that all of the separate teams working on this puzzle can one day pinpoint what species was the common ancestor of all snakes." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41463087/ns/technology_and_science-science/ February 7, 2011

This “story” (when examined carefully) claims that these alleged useless hind legs were present on this poor creature for anywhere from 4million to 22 million years !!! Was it a land based lizrd or a marine based lizard ? Don't know. Not only that, this “snake” expert (or whatever she is) openly admits that the fossil record cannot pinpoint an ancestor.

But my kid’s biology book says that scientists know that snakes evolved from lizards. Nice.

Sure. I'll give you an example from one of my kids books that I had discussed in an earlier thread:

"Biology- Understanding Life" – Alters & Alters - copyright 2006.

As always, I no more than flipped it open to page 251 where a new chapter starts and am immediately drawn to strange claim made in the first paragraph. The chapter is titled “Beyond Darwinism: A Genetic Basis of Evolution.” The very first sentence in the chapter says “Scientists know that snakes evolved from ancient lizards.”

They know this ?? The next two paragraphs go on to explain the hypotheses that have been formed to explain how the ancient lizard lost its legs. Now, I have heard that there is supposedly fossil evidence to suggest that snakes evolved from lizards but to see a college level text declaring that scientists KNOW this is, to me, a good example of the dishonest claims that are often made.

And then you have this:"Houssaye, however, does not think the case is yet closed as to whether or not snakes evolved from a marine or land-based lizard."The question of snake origin should not be resolved in the next 10 years," Houssaye said.She is, however, hopeful that all of the separate teams working on this puzzle can one day pinpoint what species was the common ancestor of all snakes." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41463087/ns/technology_and_science-science/ February 7, 2011

This “story” (when examined carefully) claims that these alleged useless hind legs were present on this poor creature for anywhere from 4million to 22 million years !!! Was it a land based lizrd or a marine based lizard ? Don't know. Not only that, this “snake” expert (or whatever she is) openly admits that the fossil record cannot pinpoint an ancestor.

But my kid’s biology book says that scientists know that snakes evolved from lizards. Nice.

You do realize that scientists never know anything with 100% certainty, don't you? That means that Dr. Houssaye - who by the way is a paleontologist, thus why she's studying fossilized snakes - was saying that we don't know the exact fossil record of snakes very well yet. However, that does not mean that scientists are not reasonably certain[1] that snakes are descended from lizards. That's because scientists do not rely on one single source of knowledge. Morphology, phylogeny, biochemistry, and genetics all point at snakes having a common ancestor in the lizard family somewhere. We just don't know for sure which one it is, thus Dr. Houssave's comments.

While I'll grant that textbook manufacturers are not always very good at putting things the way scientists would put them, to pick something like this - a textbook saying that scientists knowing something, then trying to make the case that they don't know because all the holes haven't been filled in yet - as your example seems more than a bit ludicrous. Honestly, it comes across as you trying to find excuses to justify what you already believe.